David Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1620 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

David Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 27 February, 2026

                                                                              COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions
No
             and Registrar's
                order with
               Signatures
                                                                                     2026:UHC:1446

                               BA1 No. 2105 of 2025

                               David Kumar                      --Applicant

                                               Versus

                               State of Uttarakhand          --Respondent

                               Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the Applicant.

2. Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant - David Kumar, aged about 23 years, S/o Vinod Kumar, R/o Village Narsan Khurd, P.S. Kotwali Manglaur, District Haridwar. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 370 of 2025, registered at Police Station Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar, under Sections 318(4), 348, 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

4. Heard Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the Applicant, and Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has never received any money or property from the complainant or any other person through fraudulent means, nor has he participated in any transaction involving any forged document, warrant, or impersonation. It is further submitted that the alleged non-bailable warrant or any other document does not bear the Applicant's name, signature, or handwriting and, therefore, the provisions of Sections 318(4), 348, 336(3), 338, 340(2), and 61 of the B.N.S., 2023 are not attracted against him. It is also submitted that the Applicant has neither used nor created any electronic signature or password by impersonating anyone's identity and, therefore, the provisions of Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 are also not attracted against him. Learned counsel further submits that during custody, the Investigating Officer forcibly obtained the Applicant's signatures on several blank and typed papers and, under coercion and threat, compelled him to pose for photographs and videos on their mobile phones. The Applicant is in jail since 06.09.2025. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar and, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the evidence.

6. Learned State Counsel opposed the Bail Application.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court is of the view that the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail at this stage.

8. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed.

9. Let the Applicant be released on bail upon his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

10. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(Ashish Naithani, J.) 27.02.2026 Shiksha